Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding: Including LANs in the Flooding Topology

to more easily enable P2P mode by default – speak to your favorite vendor. That is a feature – not a protocol extension. Les From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 8:20 AM To: Robert Raszuk Cc: Tony Przygienda ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; Les Ginsberg

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions

Mobashshera - Thanx for your interest. While there is nothing wrong with advertising Algo 0 first, the benefits of doing so are minimal. This is because when SR algorithm sub-TLV is received all the algorithms advertised need to be parsed by the receiver. If your argument is that having

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding: Including LANs in the Flooding Topology

Przygienda Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 3:34 PM To: Acee Lindem (acee) Cc: tony...@tony.li; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding: Including LANs in the Flooding Topology Read it through (fairly slowly even ;-) and seems Les is for simply

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding: Including LANs in the Flooding Topology

not exist in the topologies where flooding optimizations will be used, not supporting LANs seems to be an undesirable restriction. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 8:31 AM > To: tony...@tony.li; lsr@ie

[Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding: Including LANs in the Flooding Topology

(I have altered the subject so we can discuss the two issues in Tony's previous post separately.) There are several aspects to consider when discussing LAN support in the context of flooding optimizations: 1)Flooding topology advertisement (centralized mode only) Support for encoding LANs

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-white-distoptflood-00.txt

Tony - > -Original Message- > From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li > Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 8:44 AM > To: 7ri...@gmail.com > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-white-distoptflood- >

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-white-distoptflood-00.txt

es > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of 7ri...@gmail.com > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 6:18 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-white-distoptflood- > 00.txt > > > > The WG jus

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-white-distoptflood-00.txt

-Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of 7ri...@gmail.com > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 6:18 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-white-distoptflood- > 00.txt > > > > The WG just went thr

Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-white-distoptflood-00.txt

Russ - The WG just went through a lengthy consideration of multiple flooding optimization drafts and selected https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding/ as the vehicle for the WG to use to move forward in this area. It would be good if, in the context of the above, you

Re: [Lsr] "unknown TLVs" in YANG data models

Acee - A minor correction. IS-IS has no limit to the number of levels "TLVs" can be nested. The most we have needed thus far is 2 (i.e., sub-sub-TLV) - but there is no protocol limitation. That said, I do not encourage deep nesting - I am not thrilled to have sub-sub-TLVs - but when it makes

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-22

Alvaro - Thanx for the excellent review. V23 of the draft has been posted Please review and verify that all comments have been addressed to your satisfaction - subject to my responses inline below. > -Original Message- > From: Alvaro Retana > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 3:21 PM >

Re: [Lsr] draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv

Bruno - Thanx for your comments. V2 of the draft has been posted which addresses a number of the issues. More inline. From: bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 4:02 AM To: lsr@ietf.org; draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-invalid-...@ietf.org Cc: Alvaro Retana Subject: RE:

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-22

Alvaro - From: Alvaro Retana Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 10:52 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; Uma Chunduri Subject: RE: AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-22 On March 20, 2019

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-22

Alvaro - Thanx for the review. We will work on addressing the comments. In regards to the relationship with RFC 7794, there is a history here. The N and R flags were originally defined as part of the prefix-sid sub-TLV in early versions of this draft. However, it was realized that there were

Re: [Lsr] IPR Poll for "Restart Signaling for IS-IS" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-01

I am not aware of any relevant IPR. Les From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:17 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Paul Wells (pauwells) Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: IPR Poll for "Restart Signaling for IS-IS" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-01 Hi

Re: [Lsr] Temporary addition of links to flooding topology in dynamic flooding

Robert – I don’t think the word “random” is applicable. Section 6.7.11 states (emphasis added): “In the unlikely event of multiple failures on the flooding topology, it may become partitioned. The nodes that remain active on the edges of the flooding topology partitions will recognize

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding

Tony - Let me propose that we add something to sections 6.7.5, 6.7.9, and 6.7.11 like: Addition of temporary flooding should be done with caution, as the addition of excessive connectivity to the flooding topology may trigger unwanted behavior. Routers SHOULD add temporary flooding in a rate

Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding

Tony - From: Lsr On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2019 9:16 AM To: Tony Li Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) Subject: Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:31 PM, tony...@tony.li wrote: Let me propose that we

Re: [Lsr] Multiple failures in Dynamic Flooding

It takes too long when Hello packet is lost. Repairing split flooding topology needs to be fast. Fortunately, lost hello packets are a relatively rare occurrence. While repairing the flooding topology needs to be done expediently, attempting to do so and triggering a cascade failure of the

Re: [Lsr] [spring] FlexAlgo and Global Adj-SIDs

age- > From: Alexander Vainshtein > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 8:47 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; spr...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- > extensions@ietf.org; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > Subject: RE: [spring] FlexAlgo and Global Adj-

Re: [Lsr] [spring] FlexAlgo and Global Adj-SIDs

Sasha - draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions is currently in AD review - and the companion OSPF document has already been approved and is waiting for a dependent draft to progress before publication as an RFC. It is too late to make significant changes. Further, while I agree with both

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

Huaimo – Some responses inline. From: Lsr On Behalf Of Huaimo Chen Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 8:16 PM To: Tony Li Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ; Acee Lindem (acee) Subject: Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux] Hi Tony, >From: Tony Li

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01

Drake Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01 Hi, John: Thanks for your review and comments. The use cases and origin

Re: [Lsr] 答复: Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01

: Lsr On Behalf Of Aijun Wang Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 6:40 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] 答复: Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01 Hi, Les: Thank

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "OSPF Extension for Prefix Originator" - draft-wang-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-ext-01

To the extent that the draft defines functionality equivalent to that defined in IS-IS RFC 7794 – specifically a means to advertise the source router-id of a given advertisement – it defines a necessary and useful extension to the OSPF protocol – and I support that work. However, in its

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for draft-li-lsr-dynamic-flooding-02 + IPR poll.

Support adoption (as co-author). I am not aware of any relevant IPR. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 2:45 AM > To: lsr@ietf.org > Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org; cho...@chopps.org > Subject: [Lsr] WG

Re: [Lsr] Moving Forward [Re: Flooding Reduction Draft Redux]

Robert – Let’s please not introduce issues which are not relevant. ☺ Any flooding optimization solution only applies to a single LSDB – and the set of nodes/links which support flooding of that LSDB. This means (in IS-IS speak): · Level-1 is distinct from Level-2. I could choose to

Re: [Lsr] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: (with COMMENT)

Done. V5 has been published. Les From: Alvaro Retana Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 7:46 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; Suresh Krishnan Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810...@ietf.org; The IESG ; lsr@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org Subject

Re: [Lsr] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: (with COMMENT)

I will remove the text – though clearly I disagree with this choice. Les From: Alvaro Retana Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 4:01 AM To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Suresh Krishnan Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; The IESG ; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; draft

Re: [Lsr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04: (with COMMENT)

(Copying Mirja as well since one portion of my reply relates to her comment) Warren - Inline. > -Original Message- > From: Warren Kumari > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 3:10 PM > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810...@ietf.org; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) > ;

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04.txt

This version addresses review comments from Alissa and Alexey. Thanx. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 7:51 AM > To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > Cc: lsr@ietf.org > Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action:

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-01.txt

This version addresses Routing Directorate review comments from Manav (thanx!!). Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 5:23 PM > To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > Cc: lsr@ietf.org > Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action:

Re: [Lsr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03

to take the measurements – nor has anyone expressed concern as to any omissions in the parameters advertised. Therefore we have no reason to alter the existing text in these areas. Responses inline. From: Yoshifumi Nishida Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 1:31 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg

Re: [Lsr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03

at any time to raise questions about RFC7810/RFC7471 and the WG can decide whether it agrees that changes are needed. But that is not within the scope of this work. Les From: Alvaro Retana Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 9:55 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee) ; Christian

Re: [Lsr] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03

: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 6:41 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: nish...@wide.ad.jp; tsv-...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; IETF list ; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 Hi, Les, On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 6:52 PM

Re: [Lsr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03

Yoshi - Thanx for taking the time to review. I can appreciate that this may the first time you have looked at RFC7810 - let alone the bis draft. As a result you have commented on content which is common to the bis draft and the RFC it is modifying (RFC 7810). While your questions in isolation

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-21.txt

Folks - Authors of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions/ received private comments that the

[Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01.txt

) ; Tony Li ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01.txt A new version of I-D, draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Les Ginsberg and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ginsberg

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-02

Alvaro – Comments inline. From: Alvaro Retana Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 2:38 PM To: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810...@ietf.org Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; lsr@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org Subject: AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-02 Dear authors: Thanks for taking on

Re: [Lsr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14]

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03 has been published. This addresses the inconsistency with RFC7471. Les From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 2:46 PM To: Alvaro Retana ; John Scudder ; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810...@ietf.org Cc: Hares

Re: [Lsr] Available Bandwidth erratum 5486 [was: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14]

Alvaro – As lead author on rfc7810bis I am happy to modify the language to be consistent with RFC7471. That seems like the far easier pathway so long as we have your assurance (which it seems we do) that this will not unduly delay progress of rfc7810bis. I do find that the fact that you

Re: [Lsr] [spring] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc & draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc

, but it is not sufficient. Hope this is clear. Les From: Aijun Wang Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 10:41 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; stephane.litkow...@orange.com; lsr@ietf.org Cc: spr...@ietf.org Subject: 答复: [spring] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc & draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc Hi,

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis-00 - Restart Signaling for IS-IS

Obviously as co-author I support this. This modest extension makes IS-IS GR usable for platforms which cannot reload within the normal adjacency hold-time. It also allows the helping neighbors to be aware that they have a restarting neighbor in case topology changes occur which would compromise

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc & draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc

Stephane - The use case for this proposal is to support inter-AS scenarios in the absence of a controller. If the WG agrees that this use case needs to be addressed I believe the proposal below is a good and viable compromise. I say "compromise" because - as you mention below - ELC/ELRD are

Re: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q

T. Les > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 4:49 AM > To: Dongjie (Jimmy) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > ; Toerless Eckert ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q > > Hi Jie

Re: [Lsr] LSR: Using DSCP for path/topology selection Q

Toerless - It's pretty hard to understand the context for your email. What leads you to believe that any of the MT specifications you mention say anything normative about DSCP and topologies?? RFC4915 does not mention DSCP at all - but does make the statement:

Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00

Support. Les From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 2:11 PM To: lsr@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00 At the LSR WG

Re: [Lsr] IPR Call for draft for "Restart Signaling for IS-IS" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis

I am not aware of any relevant IPR. Les From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 11:08 AM To: lsr@ietf.org Cc: m...@mshand.org.uk Subject: [Lsr] IPR Call for draft for "Restart Signaling for IS-IS" - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5306bis Les, Paul, Mike, In

Re: [Lsr] Teasing us with secrets

ginal Message- > From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 7:40 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: Henk Smit ; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Teasing us with secrets > > > Les, > > > I am not "teasing". > > I

Re: [Lsr] IS-IS over TCP

Henk - Thanx for the thoughtful response. I'll do my best to respond in kind. Inline. > -Original Message- > From: Henk Smit > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 5:26 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: tony...@tony.li; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] IS-IS over

Re: [Lsr] IS-IS over TCP

/ . Please do not confuse the two. Les From: Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 12:39 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: hhws...@xs4all.nl; Tony Li ; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] IS-IS over TCP Hi Les, > There are existing and successful deployments of an insta

Re: [Lsr] IS-IS over TCP

Henk/Gunter - Couple of points. 1)IS-IS PDUs are sent directly over layer 2 - whereas TCP (or other transport) are sent over Layer3. This means we have a potential fate sharing issue where IIHs (which continue to be sent over Layer 2 in your proposal (as I understand it) may be successfully

[Lsr] Comments on draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-mt-deployment-cons-01

Having now read the draft in its entirety... As per the discussion in the WG meeting today... I agree that MT and its relationship to address-families can be confusing. I also agree that when deploying multiple address-family support the decision to use/not-use MT can be confusing. I also agree

Re: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels - draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-04.txt

Support. It is a straighforward solution to the problem. Les From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 3:25 PM To: lsr@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels - draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-04.txt This begins an

[Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-00.txt

to cause interoperability issues. Comments are most welcome. Les -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 11:46 AM To: Paul Wells (pauwells) ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-19.txt

Just updating Jeff's affiliation. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 11:06 PM > To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > Cc: lsr@ietf.org > Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-19.txt > > > A

Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

Bruno/Julien/Benjamin – V18 of the draft has been published. I believe this addresses all outstanding comments. Thanx very much for your input. Les From: bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:56 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Acee Lindem (acee) Cc: Routing

Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

Decraene Cc: Routing Directorate ; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana ; lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; MEURIC Julien IMT/OLN Subject: Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15 Hi Bruno, On Oct 3

Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

Bruno – Trimming the thread… [Les2:] Label imposition is meant to cover both the SWAP operation and the PUSH operation. In the example you provided above where a label stack of “12” is replaced by a label stack of “14,15” the number of labels “imposed” is 2. [Bruno2] In that case, I definitely

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Restart Signaling for IS-IS" - draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc5306bis-01

Thanx Acee. Renamed document has been uploaded and is awaiting WG chair approval for posting. Les From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 7:04 PM To: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption Poll for "Restart Signaling for IS-IS" -

Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

Bruno – Inline. From: bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 1:02 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Alvaro Retana ; MEURIC Julien IMT/OLN Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review

Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

Alvaro – Thanx for helping drive this to closure. Please see inline. From: Alvaro Retana Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 10:54 AM To: Julien Meuric ; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: lsr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org Subject: Re

Re: [Lsr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

Julien - Snipping out the resolved bits. > -Original Message- > From: Julien Meuric > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 3:27 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; rtg-...@ietf.org > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; rtg-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing- > m...@i

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-16

the IANA section as is. Les > -Original Message- > From: Benjamin Kaduk > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 6:21 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: David Waltermire ; sec...@ietf.org; > lsr@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-16

nical documentation should reside in other parts of the document…” I think what you propose is not consistent with the intent of the IANA section. Thanx. Les > -Original Message- > From: Benjamin Kaduk > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 4:06 PM > To: Les G

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-16

Benjamin - Responses nline. > -Original Message- > From: Benjamin Kaduk > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 2:11 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Cc: David Waltermire ; sec...@ietf.org; > lsr@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf

Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-17: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin - Responses inline. > -Original Message- > From: Benjamin Kaduk > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 2:46 PM > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps > ; aretana.i...@gmail.com; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; > cho...@chopps.org; lsr@ietf.org >

Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-16

David - Thanx for the review. A new version of the draft (17) has been published to address your comments - subject to my responses below. > -Original Message- > From: David Waltermire > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 12:14 PM > To: sec...@ietf.org > Cc: lsr@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;

Re: [Lsr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15: (with COMMENT)

Warren - Thanx for the review, your kind words, and your sense of humor. I have published V16 of the draft which addresses your comments except as noted below. > -Original Message- > From: Warren Kumari > Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 4:52 PM > To: The IESG > Cc:

Re: [Lsr] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-15

Julien - Thanx for your detailed review - and your patience in waiting for a response (I returned from vacation only a few days ago). I have published V16 of the draft which addresses your comments except as noted inline below. > -Original Message- > From: Julien Meuric > Sent:

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-02.txt

This new version addresses recently reported Errata RFC7810 (5486). Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2018 6:33 AM > To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > Cc: lsr@ietf.org > Subject: [Lsr] I-D Action:

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-13

Alvaro – I have posted V15 addressing your comments. Inline. From: Alvaro Retana Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:56 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org Subject: RE: AD Review of draft-ietf

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-13

Alvaro – I have posted V15 addressing your comments. Responses inline. From: Alvaro Retana Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:54 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-...@ietf.org Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Christian Hopps ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org Subject: RE: AD Review of draft

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

Works for me. Thanx Jeff. Les From: Jeff Tantsura Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 1:21 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Tony Przygienda Cc: Tony Li ; lsr@ietf.org; Acee Lindem (acee) Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward Les, Not going to repeat Tony P

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

In the discussions which led to the creation of LSVR and RIFT WGs, considerable interest was expressed in working on enhancements to existing Link State protocols. You can peruse the dcrouting mailing list archives. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrouting/ It is rather befuddling to

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-13

Alvaro – V14 of the draft has been posted addressing your comments – subject to my responses previously sent. Please let us know if this is sufficient or you still have concerns which need to be addressed. Les From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 3:52 PM

Re: [Lsr] AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-13

Alvaro – A very thorough review – thanx. Jeff has the pen – but I think he is on holiday at the moment – so there may be a short delay as regards a new version. I will confine myself to comments on the non-editorial issues. Inline. From: Alvaro Retana Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 1:53 PM

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-05.txt

Bruno – Inline. From: bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Friday, August 03, 2018 10:01 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: lsr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-mpls-...@ietf.org; 徐小虎(义先) Subject: RE: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-05.txt Les, Please see inline [Bruno] From: Les Ginsberg

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

V1 has been posted with the additional text. Hope this clears any issues with the shepherd's report. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:07 PM > To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Acee Lindem (acee) &

Re: [Lsr] Concerns with draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing

Uma - I share the concerns expressed by Ketan and Peter. Although I will certainly consider the additional response you seem to have hinted at in your reply to Peter, it seems to me that Section 6 of your draft acknowledges that there is a scaling problem - and then references what seems to

[Lsr] Comments on draft-hu-lsr-isis-path-mtu

(Changed the subject – was “RE: [Lsr] IETF 102 LSR Working Group Call for Agenda Items”) Zhibo – Following up on Acee’s comment…he is (of course) quite correct that there already is a per link MTU sub-TLV defined by RFC 7176 – it is sub-TLV 28 defined here:

[Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ginsberg-isis-rfc5306bis-01.txt

FYI. The new version of the draft includes an Appendix describing the changes relative to RFC 5306. Otherwise the content is unchanged from V0. Les -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 8:58 AM To: Paul Wells (pauwells) ; Les Ginsberg

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16 - Shepherd review comments

Uma – Thank you. I have posted a new version (17) with the previously provided changes. Les From: Uma Chunduri Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 9:21 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Cc: lsr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org

Re: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

WG chairs - Can we consider WG last call completed? (It has been more than 3 weeks...) Would really like to get this small but important correction published ASAP. Thanx. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Christian Hopps > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 8:29 AM >

Re: [Lsr] Signalling ERLD (ISIS, OSPF and BGP-LS)

Gunter - I strongly support Option #2 and strongly support Ketan's recommendation that an MSD sub-type be used to advertise ERLD. This is the unified framework that the MSD advertisement has been designed to support. The following documents provide a unified definition of this mechanism:

Re: [Lsr] draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16 - Shepherd review comments

– but clearly ISO 10589 is a normative reference. Thanx. Les From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 10:00 PM To: Uma Chunduri ; lsr@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensi...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-ietf-isis-segment

Re: [Lsr] Gentle Reminder!!!Re: draft-ietf-isis-te-app: Clarification on Application Identifier bits

@ietf.org; stef...@previdi.net; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; jdr...@juniper.net Subject: Gentle Reminder!!!Re: draft-ietf-isis-te-app: Clarification on Application Identifier bits Dear Authors, Could you please help me with the query. Please confirm about the new bit for SRv6-TE applications. We

Re: [Lsr] IGP TE Metric Extensions

Muthu – I agree with the comments from all of the folks who have responded to you thus far. The RFC is specifying what the externally visible behavior needs to be in order for the feature to be safely and usefully deployed – it is not specifying HOW to implement that behavior. But, let’s

Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs

Chris – To be “absolutely clear”, I object to the sharing of the “protocol type” field at any level. We are not talking about “content”. Les From: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 10:08 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Cc: Acee

Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs

Monday, May 21, 2018 9:15 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs On May 21, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com<m

Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs

Chris - From: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 5:44 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs On May 20, 2018

Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs

g> > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 4:48 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs > > > > > On May 19, 2018, at 12:2

Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs

> From: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 6:15 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs >

Re: [Lsr] Flex Algo merge work, IS-IS and OSPF FAD sub-TLVs

(I never saw Chris's original email either - perhaps it was sent during the period when delivery to the alias when compromised.) I am in full agreement w Acee - it is a VERY BAD idea to try to combine protocol TLV registries. There are many reasons for this - here are a few. 1)In IS-IS the

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-11.txt

age- > From: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 3:09 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Cc: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-1

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Last Call on "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using OSPF"

I support WG last call. This document is now mature – and fully aligned with draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd which has already passed last call. Les From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:20 AM To: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr]

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-11.txt

This is a minor editorial revision to make the draft consistent w draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd-12. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:49 PM > To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > Cc:

Re: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-isis-te-app-04.txt

This version contains corrections/clarifications to the IANA section which were identified during the recent early allocation of codepoints process. Les > -Original Message- > From: Lsr On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 2:46

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" - draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

Acee – Thanx. New version has been submitted – pending WG chair approval to be posted. Les From: Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 12:17 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: LSR WG Adoption call for "IS-IS Traffic Engi

Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" - draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00

WG chairs – It has been more than 2 weeks since adoption call was initiated and support has been expressed on the list – w no objections. Can we consider WG adoption complete? Can I issue a WG version of the draft? Thanx. Les From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >